http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/2175-7968.

2016v36n1p62

TRANSLATION OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE

Marcílio Garcia de Queiroga*

Universidade Federal de Campina Grande

Lincoln P. Fernandes**
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina

Abstract: In this to paper we aim to discuss some of the complexities

involved in the translation of children’s literature. Therefore, we seek
to review the literature in search of a concept for children’ s literature,
identifying some intersection points among a wide array of discourses and
the challenges encountered in establishing a working definition due to the
complexity of the elements involved. The arguments about the definition
of children’s literature allow us a deeper look about the complexity and
peculiarities of the genre, as pointed out by theorists such as Peter Hunt,
Ronald Jobe and Zohar Shavit. Specific features of the translation of
children’s literature are pointed out and discussed, of which we highlight
the asymmetrical relationship / dual player - the adult intervenes at

*
He holds an MA degree in Literature and Culture from Programa de Pós-Gradu-
ação em Literatura (PPGL), Universidade Federal da Paraíba (2005) and a Doc-
toral degree in Translation Studies from Programa de Pós-Graduação em Estudos
da Tradução, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Currently, he is a lecturer
at Universidade Federal de Campina Grande. Campina Grande, Paraíba, Brazil.
Email: marciliogq@gmail.com
**
Lincoln P. Fernandes has received his M.A. and PhD degrees in Applied Lin-
guistics to English Language (Research area: Translation) from Universidade Fe-
deral de Santa Catarina (UFSC), Brazil. He is currently a lecturer in Translation
Studies at the same university and participates in two of its postgraduate program-
mes; Pós-Graduação em Estudos da Tradução (PGET) and Pós-Graduação em
Inglês (PGI). Email: lincoln.fernandes@ufsc.br

Esta obra utiliza uma licença Creative Commons CC BY:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Marcílio Garcia de Queiroga & Lincoln P. Fernandes

all stages of the translation children’s literature; the multiplicity of

functions, as indicated by the insertion/ belonging of the genre to socio-
educational and literary systems and permeated by their values; and
textual manipulation, through liberties because of the peripheral position
of the genre. Abridgments, omissions, additions, adaptations, language
adjustements all determined by ideological issues are some of the aspects
discussed in this paper.
Keywords: Translation of Children’s Literature Asymmetrical relation.
Multiplicity of functions. Textual manipulation.

TRADUÇÃO DE LITERATURA INFANTOJUVENIL

Resumo: Neste trabalho nos propomos a discutir as complexidades da

tradução de literatura infantojuvenil. Para tanto, procuramos perfazer ini-
cialmente o roteiro de teóricos em busca de uma conceituação para a lite-
ratura infantojuvenil, dos pontos de intersecção entre os vários discursos
e das dificuldades encontradas para estabelecimento de uma definição em
virtude da complexidade de elementos envolvidos. Os argumentos acerca
da definição de literatura infantojuvenil permitem um olhar mais aprofun-
dado acerca da complexidade e das peculiaridades do gênero, conforme
apontado por teóricos como Peter Hunt, Ronald Jobe e Zohar Shavit.
As particularidades da tradução de LIJ são apontadas e discutidas, entre
as quais destacamos a relação assimétrica/leitor dual em que o adulto
se interpõe em todas as etapas que compõem a (tradução de) literatura
infantojuvenil; a multiplicidade de funções, dado apontado pela inserção/
pertencimento do gênero aos sistemas sócio educacional e literário e per-
meado de valores por eles atribuídos; e a manipulação textual, percebida
nas liberdades tomadas em virtude da condição periférica do gênero. Cor-
tes, omissões, acréscimos, adaptações, ajustes de linguagem determinados
por questões ideológicas são alguns dos aspectos discutidos neste artigo.
Palavras-chave: Tradução de literatura infantojuvenil. Relação assimétri-
ca. Multiplicidade de funções. Manipulação textual.

Cad. Trad. (Florianópolis, Online), V. 36, nº 1, p. 62-78, jan-abr/2016 63

Translation of Children’s Literature

In Search of a Concept for Children’s Literature

In a 2003 paper, Zohar Shavit points out her dissatisfaction with

the status quo of academic research into children’s literature (CL)1.
The author stresses that CL was not even a legitimate object of
study in that period, nor respected,on the contrary, it was tolerated
and perceived as a field of peripheral and insignificant research
and suffered from a status of inferiority. A similar issue is pointed
by O’Connell in a paper first published in 1999 and republished
in 2006 as a chapter of The Translation of Children’s Literature -
A Reader, edited by Gillian Lathey. The author explains that the
production of CL and the number of translations of this particular
genre are not compatible with the volume of academic studies
that have been carried out so far. Shavit (2003, p. 31-2) states
that, despite the fact that this is a field underexplored by scholars,
it is still complex and promising as a research area. Due to the
complexities of cultural relations involved and the verification
of the mechanisms and dynamics in which children’s literature
occurs, “[n]o other field enables us to inquire into the mechanism
of culture, social manipulations and social procedure the way
children’s literature does.”2.
The scenario of critical studies presented by Tabbert (2002)
shows a distinct piece of information: translation of CL appears
as an object of academic interest. In the opening of his paper, the
author states that the literature in question, traditionally the domain
of librarians and teachers, has aroused the interest of scholars in
the last 30 years, and at the same time it has extended its scope
of study. These facts are attributed to the establishment of two
new fields of research, namely Translation Studies and Children’s
Literature Studies. Studies in the area testify if not a growing, but
at least a constant interest from the academic community, although
there are gaps and the rhythm is a bit slow, especially as regards
the specific Brazilian production.
We can list an endless series of factors that has led children’s
literature to be neglected for so long by the Academia: the first is

Cad. Trad. (Florianópolis, Online), V. 36, nº 1, p. 62-78, jan-abr/2016 64

Marcílio Garcia de Queiroga & Lincoln P. Fernandes

the relationship with its target audience as it is a product targeted

to a specific audience (children and young people). The cognitive
abilities of these readers are considered to be limited for complex
texts and the aesthetic rigor of children’s books are believed to
be lower in comparison with adult literature. This simple genre
immediately becomes classified as non-literature, non-canonical
and non-official. Among other historical factors we could mention
Children’s Literature close links with social institutions considered
fundamental in the modern world such as family, church and school.
The direct connection with these three institutions stimulates CL to
fulfill multiple functions, sometimes with doctrinal, pedagogical
or moral ends. At the same time, CL is configured as a product
of marketing interest accommodating adult’s demands and
interventions as well as their views on children and young people
(Lajolo & Zilberman, 2007, p. 18). The many concessions that
occur in the production process of children’s books until their
arrival to the market and later use can contribute for their negative
image, since it is thought that these concessions interfere with the
artistic quality of the texts, but at the same time revealing that this
kind of literature cannot exist without such concessions.
Peter Hunt (2010, p. 49) highlights a number of striking
features in his argument for the consolidation of the area under
consideration. The features are the contribution of other disciplines
relevant to a broad class of users (teachers, parents, children /
youth and adult readers , editors, publicists, critics, translators and
librarians,3particular challenges of interpretation and production,
implications for language acquisition, censorship, gender relations
and sexuality. This vast number of elements, contradictorily, may
have acted against the acceptance of CL as a legitimate object of
study, concludes Hunt (ibid.).
Among the many issues that surround the area, the search
for a definition that can contemplate the multitude of elements
involved in children’s literature is perhaps the most complex topic
in discussions about this particular kind of text. In Brazil, we can
add to this issue the terminological variety used to treat this very

Cad. Trad. (Florianópolis, Online), V. 36, nº 1, p. 62-78, jan-abr/2016 65

Translation of Children’s Literature

same object of study. In English, the term “children’ s literature”

relates to literature written and/or targeted for children and young
readers, while in Brazil the nomenclature has become more and
more fragmented: “infanto-juvenil”, “infantojuvenil” “infantil e
juvenil”, “infantil”, “juvenil”. Historical and cultural factors are
decisive for this lack of correspondence between the two languages.
The definition of “child” and thus “childhood” is stated as being
problematic, since they are unstable concepts that vary over time.
Attached to these difficulties is the term “literature”, difficult
concept, which contributes to further encourage the debate, since the
issue of literariness, intrinsic characteristic of literary texts, might
be considered irrelevant in a text whose aim would be seen only
for teaching purposes. Finally, the term “juvenile” when separated
emerges as an incognito in the definition of Children’s Literature
and it appears to contribute to the fragmentation of this research
area even further, since there is not a parameter set in relation to
the delimitation of when childhood begins and juvenileness ends.
Oittinen (2000, p. 5) sees children’s literature as a kind of
literature that is read silently by children or aloud to them. The
author explains that it relates to the public with which she works
(i.e. schoolchildren), but she also acknowledges that because of the
fluidity in the concept of childhood her remarks will be extended
to the young reader as well. John Rowe Townsend presents a
definition centered in the agents who control the market of this
particular kind of literature.

In the short run, it appears that, for better or worse, the

publisher decides. If you put a book on the children’s list,
the book will then be reviewed and read as such by children
(and young people). Now if it is put on the adult list, it will
not be - at least not immediately4 (Townsend, 1980, p.197).

the responsibility, therefore, would be centered on the publisher. To

target a book at a particular audience, however, does not guarantee

Cad. Trad. (Florianópolis, Online), V. 36, nº 1, p. 62-78, jan-abr/2016 66

Marcílio Garcia de Queiroga & Lincoln P. Fernandes

that this audience will adopt it5. Books initially targeted at adults
eventually became classics of children’s literature later, as is the
case of Robinson Crusoeby Daniel Defoe and Gulliver’s Travelsby
Jonathan Swift. The reverse movement also happens to children’s
classics that have become successful among adult readers, such
asAlice in the Wonderland by Lewis Carroll and Le Petit Prince
by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry or other works whose relevance in
the publishing market was significant for both children and adult
audiences. This can be illustrated by J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter
Series(Fernandes, 2004).
Supported by Towsend (ibid.) and Knowles and Malmkjaer
(1996, p. 2), the author proposes an operational concept of
children’s literature as “any narrative written and published for
children, including teenage novels with a focus on adolescent and
young adult readers.6 Peter Hunt (2010) proposes a redefinition
of the genre and suggests that instead of children’s literature, the
use of the term “texts” for children/young people would be more
appropriate. The theoretical proposal by the author becomes more
complicated with the use of the term “text”, as it is used to mean
any form of communication. Thus, children’s texts would be in a
relationship with films, videos, journals, TV series, CD-ROMs, in
short, all kinds of text targeting at or established for the audience
into question.
In the Brazilian context, Cecília Meireles (1979) proposes a
broader discussion of what children’s literature is7. The first
question put by the author is whether children’s literature is part of
the larger literary system, that is, whether it is considered first and
foremost as literature. The given answer is ‘yes’ and it is followed
by another question, if children’s literature exists, then how can we
characterize it? How to delimit what is in the scope of childhood?
While Townshend (1980) shows how the editor is responsible for
this classification, Meireles presents a different perspective based on
the child as the responsible for such classification. For her children
are responsible for the delimitation of what is considered children’s
literature according to their own preferences. For Meireles, the right

Cad. Trad. (Florianópolis, Online), V. 36, nº 1, p. 62-78, jan-abr/2016 67

Translation of Children’s Literature

thing would be to classify as children’s literature what children read

with utility and pleasure, though a notably subjective and difficult
definition to follow. The biggest problem, according to the author,
is that children’s literature has already been established as “books
for children”. And the right thing for her would be a a posteriori
rather than a priori definition, which could establish an attitude of
both the author and the publishers in relation to language and / or
text manipulations in part or in its entirety, therefore, an attitude
of ideological order. Children’s books would be characterized as
simple, easy to read and with teachings that adults would consider
adequate, these teachings can often serve interests and principles,
limiting children’s interpretation as they are judged to be unable
to perceive certain textual nuances. What cannot be denied is that
children’s literature is as complex as adult literature. This is the
exact point that Meirelles wants to make, that is, that not every
theme developed in a simplified manner and with a moral or
educational content can be classified as “children’s literature”. She
suggests that the works pass through the sieve of the child to assess
their preference for children’s books. What Meirelles proposes,
in our view, is the breakdown of borders and levies attributed by
adults to children’s literature, allowing the child the possibility of
a freer reading without so much adult interference
Arroyo (2013) corroborates this difficulty in conceptualizing
children’s literature and affirms that this conceptualization has
varied a lot in space and time in virtue of its close relationship with
pedagogy. The criteria established for a definite concept always meet
historical, social and pedagogical implications. She also highlights
examples of books such asRobinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe, who
was consecrated as a children’s classic due to its high acceptance of
the public to whom the book had initially not been addressed.
The attitudes displayed by critics on CL reflect directly or
indirectly aspects related to the translation of this particular genre.
This is discussed as follows.

Cad. Trad. (Florianópolis, Online), V. 36, nº 1, p. 62-78, jan-abr/2016 68

Marcílio Garcia de Queiroga & Lincoln P. Fernandes

Features of Translating Children’s Literature

The translation of CL is recognized by Jobe (1996, p. 513) as

one of most demanding and complicated tasks for translators. He
states that translating for children and young people is a complex
challenge, in which the translator is faced with dilemmas such
as produce a literal or free translation? Word for word or sense
for sense, thus preserving the fluidity of the text? By choosing
either one or the other translators take risks inherent to the
choices they make: the excessive proximity to the source text
(literalness) may result in a lack of vitality or make it difficult to
read (lack of readability), an adapted version, on the other hand,
can remove from the text elements judged as inseparable and fruit
of the author’s intention. Additionally, adaptation can lead to an
oversimplification of the narrative to the point that may make
translated text difficult to read.
Bastin (2009) explains that adaptation can be understood “as a
set of translational interventions that result in a text generally not
accepted as a translation, but recognized as a representation of the
source text8. The term is normally associated with the translation
of CL. This association may be due to the required changes and
adjustments to the creation of the message that will be targeted at a
new audience, as the sociolinguistic needs of this new audience are
configured differently from the source text audience. Techniques
such as paraphrasing, omission and addition are commonly used in
this case. The notion of adaptation is still confusing when compared
to that of translation. Translation would be more related to the idea
of fidelity to the original, therefore, closer to the source text, while
any distancing, cutting or deviation pointed out as transgression to
what is called the original, would be associated with adaptation.
Adaptation can be applied locally to parts of a text or globally to the
whole text. For example, when a story is adapted for the theatre;
in updating old information; by offering clarifications; normalizing
dialects, slang and words nonsense; in recreating cultural contexts;
in maintaining the message, ideas and function of the source text,

Cad. Trad. (Florianópolis, Online), V. 36, nº 1, p. 62-78, jan-abr/2016 69

Translation of Children’s Literature

but locating the message in a new context without being concerned

with the literalness (BASTIN, 2009, p.4).
In the field of discussions on translation, questions about
the specificities of translating for children/young people and
adults often arise. Is there any difference between them? The
translation for child/young readers is easier or more complex?
Klingberg (1986, p.10) clarifies that it is impossible to establish
clear limits between the problems involved in the translation of
chidren’s books and adult books. In many ways the problems
are the same, but sometimes children’s literature can bring more
severe challenges that require greater attention from the translator
as regards theoretical and methodological considerations. Perhaps
this distinction is one of the reasons for the view that translating
for children is a simple task, so less subject to academic research.
Van Coillie and Verschueren (2006, p.v-vi) corroborate Klinberg’s
argument. The authors explain that the awareness of the fact that
translating for a young readership does not differ from translating
for adults is essential for the emancipation of a research area that
has been neglected for so many years, nonetheless, they add that
today translation of CL is recognized as a literary challenge and no
less demanding than adult literature, on the contrary, the creative
and ludic use of language poses even greater obstacles that require
great empathy on the translator’s part, especially with the child’s
imaginative world.
Amid the diversity of elements with which translators have to
deal, it is also expected that they remains invisible in the text, that
is, not to leave traces of their presence in the discourse, which is
contradictory considering that the translator will have to adapt the
text in order to make it adequate to the asymmetrical features of the
genre and its multiple functions. As Lathey (2006, p.1-2) argues
that although the translator’s name does not appear in the text their
voice is marked in the text by their discursive presence.
O’Sullivan (2013) presents five issues considered central to the
discussion in translation of children’s literature: domestication/
foreignization, the child/childhood image (from the perspective of

Cad. Trad. (Florianópolis, Online), V. 36, nº 1, p. 62-78, jan-abr/2016 70

Marcílio Garcia de Queiroga & Lincoln P. Fernandes

the translator and target society), the asymmetrical communicative

relationship between adult mediators, children and young readers,
readability and semiotic aspects (image and text), and a relevant
amount of elements such as wordplay, rhymes, nonsense and
onomatopoeia, which demand a high degree of creativity on the
translator’s part. Tabbert (2002) explains that there are many
challenges to be faced by the translator of children’s literature.
Among these issues, the author points out issues linked to the text-
source. For example, register, dialectal variations and sociolects,
stylistics, the combination of images and text, cultural references,
playful use of language and dual target audience (children and
adults). Regarding the target text, there appear appear to be
ideological issues, such as language purification and simplification
with a view to readability. Among the features highlighted by the
aforementioned scholars, we may add Jobe’s (1996) point of view
on the complexities involved in the translation of CL, and highlight
three aspects for further discussion: the asymmetrical relationship
between the dual readership, multiplicity of functions and text
manipulation (completeness and readability of the text)

Asymmetrical Relations/Dual Readership

According to Lathey (2009, p.31), the adult/child duality

is central to the discussion of children’s literature: the texts are
intentionally written for adults aiming at a children’s readership?
They are texts addressed to adults and read by children or texts
that are read by both readerships (i.e. adults and children)? The
various attempts to define children’s literature reinforce the adult’s
presence in the various processes involved in the production of this
kind of text. A crucial point to be highlighted is that translation
can change this implicit relation in the text. The phenomenon
of crossover fiction (Falconer, 2008), that is, the phenomenon
of adults and children reading the same children’s books can be
exemplified by works of authors such as Jostein Gaarder, Stephanie

Cad. Trad. (Florianópolis, Online), V. 36, nº 1, p. 62-78, jan-abr/2016 71

Translation of Children’s Literature

Meyer and J. K. Rowling.9 The disparate relationship emerging

in children’s literature, in which adults evaluate the texts that
children are supposed to read is the key element that differentiates
children’s literature from that aimed at adults, concludes O’Sullivan
(2013). The adult figure practically mediates all steps taken in the
production of children’s books until their arrival in the hands of the
intended recipient. Writing, translating, publishing, reviewing and
recommending are all performed by adults. Librarians manage the
books and teachers are responsible for their use in the classroom,
reading them and promoting the encouragement for students to
read them. Parents and relatives are often the ones who purchase
the books, but can also play the role of readers and censors.
Paradoxically, without the adult in this process there would not be
children’s literature (O’SULLIVAN, 2013).
The adult figure is not always clearly present in the text, as in the
case of books with a explicit dual readershipAlice in Wonderland as
a case in point), but the dual reader will always be present because
of the all-pervasive adult mediation in the aforementioned production
steps (ALVSTAD, 2010). Hunt (2010, p.80) states that when adults
read texts targeted at children, they almost always do it in order to
recommend or censor the books for either professional or personal
reasons, judging what is or is not appropriate for this particular
readership. The preferences and needs of the stakeholders involved
are distinct, which consequently makes translating a complex and
challenging task. During this process, readers assume different
roles: the primary reader is the child and the background authority is
the adult (Fernandes, 2004). It is up to translators to understand that
different readers are involved in the textual fabric of the work and
how they are supposed to refer to these particular readers.

The Multiplicity of Functions

Children’s Literature is heterogeneous not only in its diversity of

models and in the relationship with readers, but also in its fulfilling

Cad. Trad. (Florianópolis, Online), V. 36, nº 1, p. 62-78, jan-abr/2016 72

Marcílio Garcia de Queiroga & Lincoln P. Fernandes

of various functions. By simultaneously belonging to two systems,

the literary and educational systems are instilled with values, ideas
and social, cultural and educational norms of a particular space
and time and, for O’Sullivan (2013), they belong to the cultural
practices whose main purpose is to socialize its target audience. As
Fernandes (2004) points out from a social point of view children’s
literature is a powerful socializing instrument and its language
plays a key role in the development of children as a social being.
As regards the educational aspects of children’s books, Lajolo
and Zilberman (2007, p.17) emphasize that the ties between
literature and school begin at the time when the child begins to
consume printed works targeted at them. This relationship places
children’s literature in two positions: first, as a mediator between
the child and the consumer society that gradually begins to come
into being; and secondly, as subservient to the school demands.
After all, schools promote and encourage the circulation of
children’s books among students. According to Lathey (2006, p.7),
even before there was a specific children’s literature, its reading
was associated with instructional, moral and educational purposes,
which shows a strong pedagogical slant in children’s literature.
Translations are not exempt from this role because, apart from its
entertainment function, they also act as instrumental vehicles for
ideologies and can be manipulated to conform to market demands
or the ideas and values prevailing in a given society.

Textual Manipulation

The peripheral status of children’s literature in the literary

system enables the translator to take many liberties with this kind
of text. Thus, the translator manipulates the text when cutting,
omitting, adjusting language or adding information, depending
on the required purpose. However, these procedures are allowed,
as Shavit (2006, p. 26) explains, if the translator accepts two
fundamental principles in the translation of CL: (i) the adjustment

Cad. Trad. (Florianópolis, Online), V. 36, nº 1, p. 62-78, jan-abr/2016 73

Translation of Children’s Literature

of the text to make it appropriate and useful to its target audience, in

compliance with the social relations that determine what it is good
for children and (ii) an adjustment of the story, characterization
and language referring to the perceptions of society on the target
audiences’s ability to read and understand text.
The ideological reasons are emphasized by Alvstad (2010) as
determinant in the adaptation of children’s literature. According
to her, swearwords and informal speeches are constantly
manipulated. We would add to these examples other considered
questions taboos, the example of the scenes with eschatological,
sexual elements or aspects related to the politics and religion.
This is what Klingberg (1986) classifies as “purification”. The
objective is to adjust the texts to the values of the target-text
readers. We would say that underneath this situation there is the
intention to adjust the text to the values of those who consider
themselves as responsible for the education of the intended
readers: parents, professors, librarians and critics. Fernandes
(2004) clarifies that many of these exclusions and adjustments are
due to religious, educational, family and political pressures by
means of the publishers who request the writers to exclude any
(sexist, religious, political, or moral) issues that are considered
abusive or inadequate for this particular target audience.
According to Alvstad (2010), the text can be manipulated by
the translator in two ways: (i) simplifying it, in order to make
it more accessible to the reader or (ii) increasing its lexical
density, as a way to enrich the vocabulary of its readers. Shavit
(2006) brings up the case of the adaptations of classics usually
simplified due to the widespread belief that children and young
readers are unable to read long texts. Omissions, in her opinion,
are the result of two basic criteria: (i) moral norms accepted and
demanded by the system in which the readership is involved and
of its hypothetical level of understanding. Thus, it is up to the
translator to walk between these two polar regions, being looked
for to make cuts when necessary and at the same time to make the
text accessible to the reader.

Cad. Trad. (Florianópolis, Online), V. 36, nº 1, p. 62-78, jan-abr/2016 74

Marcílio Garcia de Queiroga & Lincoln P. Fernandes

The association with schooling gives children’s literature

a status of useful tool, able to develop reading skills. This is
complemented by requirement of adequacy of language and content
to understand readers and their reading skills (PUURTINEN, 1998
p. 2). This is what is called “readability” (i.e. ease of reading and
language comprehension determined by reading difficulty levels).
Fernandes (2004) adds that these adjustments should be made in
order to make the text pleasant and motivating, thus encouraging
children and young people to keep reading. As it is possible to infer
from the mosaic of elements presented and discussed in this paper,
Translation of Children’s Literature reveals itself as a promising
and complex research area as well as challenging for the translators
of this particular kind of text.

Notes

1. Henceforth CL.

2. “No other field enables us to inquire into the mechanism of culture, social
manipulations and social procedure the way children’s literature does.” (All the
translations from Portuguese to English made in this paper are ours).

3. The information between brackets is our addition.

4. In the short run it appears that, for better or worse, the publisher decides. If
he puts a book on the children’s list, it will be reviewed as a children’s book and
will be read by children (or young people), if it is read at all. If he puts it on the
adult list, it will not—or at least not immediately.

5. Fernandes (2004), on the basis of Hannabuss (1996), explains the difficulties

in defining children’s literature and the phenomenon of “adoption”.

Cad. Trad. (Florianópolis, Online), V. 36, nº 1, p. 62-78, jan-abr/2016 75

Translation of Children’s Literature

6. Children’s literature is any narrative written and published for children and
we include the ‘teen’ novels aimed at the ‘young adult’ or late adolescent reader

7. We reproduce here the term used by the author, despite the fact that in this
article we consider the child and youth dichotomy as part of what we understand
as Children’s Literature.

8. Adaptation may be understood as a set of translative interventions which re-

sult in a text that is not generally accepted as a translation but is nevertheless re-
cognized as representing a source text.

9. The case of books addressed to adults and adopted by children or the reverse
process are instructive in this case.

References

ALVSTAD, C. Children’s literature and translation. In: GAMBIER, Y.; VAN

DOORSLAER, L. (Ed.). Handbook of translation studies. Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, 2010. p. 22-7.

ARROYO, L. Literatura infantil brasileira. São Paulo: Unesp, 2013.

BASTIN, G. L. Adaptation. IN: Baker, M. & SALDANHA, G. Routledge

encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge, 2009. p. 3-5.

FALCONER, R. The Crossover Novel: Contemporary Children’s Fiction and Its

Adult Readership.New York: Routledge, 2009.

FERNANDES, L. P. Practices of translating names in children’s fantasy litera-

ture: a corpus-based study. p. 189. Tese (Doutorado) – Curso de Pós-Graduação
em Língua Inglesa e Literatura Correspondente. Universidade Federal de Santa
Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, 2004.

Cad. Trad. (Florianópolis, Online), V. 36, nº 1, p. 62-78, jan-abr/2016 76

Marcílio Garcia de Queiroga & Lincoln P. Fernandes

HANNABUSS, S. Books Adopted by Children. In: HUNT, P. (Ed.). Internatio-

nal Companion Encyclopedia of Children’s Literature. London/New York: Rou-
tledge, 1996. p. 422-432.

HUNT, Peter. Crítica, teoria e literatura infantil. Tradução: Cid Knipel. São
Paulo: Cosac Naify, 2010.

JOBE, R. Translation. In: HUNT, P. (Ed.). International companion encyclope-

dia of children’s literature. New York: Routledge, 1996. p. 519-529.

KLINGBERG, G. Children’s fiction in the hands of translators. Blooms.

Boktyekeri: Lund, 1986.

LAJOLO, M.; ZILBERMAN, R. Literatura infantil brasileira: história & histó-

rias. 6ª ed. São Paulo: Ática, 2007.

LATHEY, G. The translation of children’s literature: a reader. Clevedon: Mul-

tilingual Matters Ltd, 2006.

LATHEY, G. Children’s literature. In: BAKER, M.; SALDANHA, G. (Ed.). Rou-

tledge encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge, 2009. p. 31-3.

MALMKJAER, K.; KNOWLES, M. Language and control in children’s litera-

ture. Routledge: London, 1996.

MEIRELES, C. Problemas da Literatura Infantil. 2ª ed. São Paulo: Summus,

1979.

O’CONNELL, E. Translating for children. In: LATHEY, G. The translation of

children’s literature: a reader. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, 2006.

O’SULLIVAN, E. Children’s literature and Translation studies. In: MILLÁN-

-VARELA et al (Ed.). The Routledge handbook of Translation Studies. Routled-
ge, 2013. p. 451-463.

OITTINEN, R. Translating for Children. New York/London: Garland Pu-

blishing, 2000.

Cad. Trad. (Florianópolis, Online), V. 36, nº 1, p. 62-78, jan-abr/2016 77

Translation of Children’s Literature

PUURTINEN, T. Syntax, Readability and Ideology in Children’s Literature.

META. Montréal, v. 43, n.4, p. 524-533, 1998.

SHAVIT, Z. “Cheshire Puss,... Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to
go from here?” Research of Children’s Literature – The State of the art. How did
we get there – how should we proceed. In: VÁZQUEZ, J. S. F. et al (Eds.) Rea-
lismo social y mundos imaginarios: Una Convivencia para el Siglo XXI. Espanha:
Servicio de Publicaciones de La UAH, 2003.

SHAVIT, Z. Translation of children’s literature. In: LATHEY, G. The transla-

tion of children’s literature: a reader. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, 2006.
pp. 25-40.

TABBERT, R. Approaches to the translation of childrens literature: A review of

critical studies since 1960. Target, v. 14, n. 2, p. 303-351, 2002.

TOWNSEND, J. R. Standards of Criticism for Children’s Literature. In: CHAM-

BERS, N. (Ed.). The Signal Approach to Children’s Books. London: Kestrel
Books, 1980.

VAN COILLIE, J.; VERSCHUEREN, W. P. Children’s literature in translation:

Challenges and Strategies. Manchester: St. Jerome, 2006.

Recebido em: 25/07/2015

Aceito em: 21/09/2015

Cad. Trad. (Florianópolis, Online), V. 36, nº 1, p. 62-78, jan-abr/2016 78